Detonation

[Kiagy]

Should Detonation be removed from the game ?

[RenamedUser_92906789]

It should, but it wont be.

[principat121]

7 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

It should, but it wont be.

No, it shouldn't. 

[starbase]

It's random. It requires you to have a flag to prevent it. If you don't have flags you have to pay for it. It should be removed.

[Commander_Ericson]

No, because we need to be able to use all the forthcoming super container detonation flags we will all get.

 

I already have hundreds of the things, even though I use them on everything

[kettch]

On 8/31/2020 at 8:12 PM, starbase said:

It's random. It requires you to have a flag to prevent it. If you don't have flags you have to pay for it. It should be removed.

Basically this. It is not tied to player skill, it usually brings irritation and pity the the inflicting party and frustration to the receiving party. The prevention 'mechanics' are so trivial they shouldn't even be called that. As I see it, the only positive thing this brings to the game are the visuals themselves and those would be much better utilized to be triggered by actual gameplay, like devstrikes, instead of just randomly occuring.

[HaachamaShipping]

It isn't the devblog that makes me pessimistic about this game, it's polls like this and the responses. Because for all the crap we give WG, only half the things we complain about are as bad as the community makes them out to be and the other half even if utterly stupid and broken has usually enough people who will defend it to the last, because why not. It isn't the constant stupidity on WGs part that makes me give up, it's these responses that make me think that WoWS isn't the game some of us want, but it is the game that the majority of the playerbase deserve.

[Tatsfield]

I don't understand why the depiction of a magazine explosion, which historically was a major reason for the sinking of several RN ships during the Battle of Jutland because internal munition safety precautions had been neglected, should be eliminated from the game because players don't like losing their ships.  If you go down that route players will ask for anything that they see as "unfair" to be removed.  It's "fairness" that spoils this game.  It's little kids that constantly complain in life about how unfair anything is that they don't like.  Ships crammed with high explosives do blow up in battle.  Why shouldn't that be depicted in a naval battle game?

[Zieten]

On 8/31/2020 at 8:12 PM, starbase said:

It's random. It requires you to have a flag to prevent it. If you don't have flags you have to pay for it. It should be removed.

^

 

and, if it's not removed, ALL classes should suffer from it. Even WGs favorite child.

[GSS95]

17 minutos antes, Tatsfield dijo:

I don't understand why the depiction of a magazine explosion, which historically was a major reason for the sinking of several RN ships during the Battle of Jutland because internal munition safety precautions had been neglected, should be eliminated from the game because players don't like losing their ships.  If you go down that route players will ask for anything that they see as "unfair" to be removed.  It's "fairness" that spoils this game.  It's little kids that constantly complain in life about how unfair anything is that they don't like.  Ships crammed with high explosives do blow up in battle.  Why shouldn't that be depicted in a naval battle game?

Exactly.

[ForlornSailor]

18 minutes ago, Zieten said:

and, if it's not removed, ALL classes should suffer from it. Even WGs favorite child.

 

upvote this man, people. Truer words were never spoken!

[HaachamaShipping]

5 minutes ago, Tatsfield said:

I don't understand why the depiction of a magazine explosion, which historically was a major reason for the sinking of several RN ships during the Battle of Jutland because internal munition safety precautions had been neglected, should be eliminated from the game because players don't like losing their ships.  If you go down that route players will ask for anything that they see as "unfair" to be removed.  It's "fairness" that spoils this game.  It's little kids that constantly complain in life about how unfair anything is that they don't like.  Ships crammed with high explosives do blow up in battle.  Why shouldn't that be depicted in a naval battle game?

I don't understand why the depiction of air power, which historically was a major reason for a shift in naval battle tactics and the decline of large surface combattants, should be eliminated from the game, because players don't like losing their ships.  If you go down that route players will ask for anything that they see as "unfair" to be removed.  It's "fairness" that spoils this game.  It's little kids that constantly complain in life about how unfair anything is that they don't like.  Ships just were not good at countering air attacks.  Why shouldn't that be depicted in a naval battle game?

 

I don't understand why the depiction of coastal fortifications, which historically caused the loss of a good few ships like the Blücher or prevented easy naval attacks, were eliminated from the game, because players don't like losing their ships to bot-controlled fortresses.  If you go down that route players will ask for anything that they see as "unfair" to be removed.  It's "fairness" that spoils this game.  It's little kids that constantly complain in life about how unfair anything is that they don't like.  Ships just had to deal with defensive fortifications. Major part of naval action in WWII was shelling coastal fortifications.  Why shouldn't that be depicted in a naval battle game?

 

Maybe we should consider that it's a naval battle game, not everything ought to be realistic, there should be some consideration for what makes for good gameplay. Because if this was realism simulator, every battle would be assymetric battle with a number of IJN BBs and a couple dozen IJN smaller ships battling more USN CVs than they get cruisers and more DDs than it has in total ships. Or things like land-based aircraft, because what we totally need is heavier bombers from offmap airfields out of reach that just swoop in and kill some ships like they did to the Prince of Wales and the Repulse and which was pretty common throughout WWII. Who wouldn't want to have this very authentic gameplay experience?

[Pandafaust]

20 minutes ago, Tatsfield said:

Ships crammed with high explosives do blow up in battle.  Why shouldn't that be depicted in a naval battle game?

Ships also suffer from non-combat related loss of power and propulsion systems. It doesn't mean that a game mechanic should be put in place where sometimes you simply don't load in to a battle as your engines broke down on the way there (unless WG are trying to simulate this already with the various server connection issues...). Or that your ships are marked periodically as unable to use for several months whilst they undergo maintenance.  Whilst the above are realistic scenarios, they don't exactly provide a benefit for the game.

[Zieten]

1 hour ago, Tatsfield said:

I don't understand why the depiction of a magazine explosion, which historically was a major reason for the sinking of several RN ships during the Battle of Jutland because internal munition safety precautions had been neglected, should be eliminated from the game because players don't like losing their ships.  If you go down that route players will ask for anything that they see as "unfair" to be removed.  It's "fairness" that spoils this game.  It's little kids that constantly complain in life about how unfair anything is that they don't like.  Ships crammed with high explosives do blow up in battle.  Why shouldn't that be depicted in a naval battle game?

nvm

[SeaWolf7]

This again?...

 

No it shouldn't be removed because its literally the only realistic aspect of real life maritime warfare left in this game. If you don't want to deal in realistic consequences, These a flag available for you.

 

On 8/31/2020 at 7:12 PM, starbase said:

It's random. It requires you to have a flag to prevent it. If you don't have flags you have to pay for it. It should be removed.

Detonation is not random. If a round finds your magazine. Boom. If it doesn't your safe. 

That one stray round from a BB that doesn't follow any of its friends even though it came from the same freaking gun and somehow finds your magazine THATS freaking random.

[HaachamaShipping]

2 minutes ago, SeaWolf7 said:

Detonation is not random. If a round finds your magazine. Boom. If it doesn't your safe. 

That one stray round from a BB that doesn't follow any of its friends even though it came from the same freaking gun and somehow finds your magazine THATS freaking random.

Except a magazine hit triggers a random chance to detonate. Guess why it says -70% chance to detonate on module and -100% or +5% on signals. You can totally get hit in the magazine and just get normal pen or citpen (depending on whether it is modelled as part of the citadel or not). Or get detonated from HE blast wave of a near miss.

[SeaWolf7]

1 minute ago, HaachamaShipping said:

Except a magazine hit triggers a random chance to detonate. Guess why it says -70% chance to detonate on module and -100% or +5% on signals. You can totally get hit in the magazine and just get normal pen or citpen (depending on whether it is modelled as part of the citadel or not).

Your right and that's something I didn't appreciate...IMO This game does not do itself any favor's by overcomplicating simple mechanics. I think it would be more fair if the % chance of detonation on a roll of the dice was ditched in favor of a simple yes or no. 

As it stands it seems unfair if some getaway with a direct hit to magazine and some don't because you know.... dice.

A direct hit due to accuracy should result in an explosion. A miss obviously should not.

If you want to guarantee your safety and not be included in that design of the game ( and dont forget your opponent is not going to be rewarded for a direct hit when he really should ) your penalty is you need to pay for the flag to do it.

 

[HaachamaShipping]

2 minutes ago, SeaWolf7 said:

Your right and that's something I didn't appreciate...IMO This game does not do itself any favor's by overcomplicating simple mechanics. I think it would be more fair if the % chance of detonation on a roll of the dice was ditched in favor of a simple yes or no. 

As it stands it seems unfair if some getaway with a direct hit to magazine and some don't because you know.... dice.

A direct hit due to accuracy should result in an explosion. A miss obviously should not.

If you want to guarantee your safety and not be included in that design of the game ( and dont forget your opponent is not going to be rewarded for a direct hit when he really should ) your penalty is you need to pay for the flag to do it.

 

If detonation was guaranteed, DDs would be basically in need to equip the flag every game and given how module damage works, ships like Thunderer would detonate ships left right and centre, because anything smaller than a BB gets the modules wrecked by the HE blast radius. It's already pretty brutal when the shells impact on a DD and almost guaranteed kill the engine and rudder, murder half the armament and set a fire or two, but if you could set off magazines with the same reliability, well, that'd be busted.

[SeaWolf7]

3 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

If detonation was guaranteed, DDs would be basically in need to equip the flag every game and given how module damage works, ships like Thunderer would detonate ships left right and centre, because anything smaller than a BB gets the modules wrecked by the HE blast radius. It's already pretty brutal when the shells impact on a DD and almost guaranteed kill the engine and rudder, murder half the armament and set a fire or two, but if you could set off magazines with the same reliability, well, that'd be busted.

yup true...

So maybe DD shouldn't be included in detonations? They have enough high risk game play as it is? But then that's not fair to have 1 class excluded when all should be at risk of it imo.

[Beastofwar]

I sometimes get the impression lots of players want all enemy weapons removed from the game, and their own buffed....

[Verblonde]

Ah, it's this time of the month is it?

 

Rather than re-hash the usual: no - keep 'em.

 

(Latest updated figures: I currently have 53 Detonations, out of 5,029 Random battles; that's an incidence of 1.05%.)

 

 

[Robber_Baron]

People who complain about carriers shouldn't bring up the argument "Detonations should be in the game because they happened in real life".

 

Both can ruin my day, but I'd gladly take some detonations if it meant we would get the old carriers back.

[HaachamaShipping]

15 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

Ah, it's this time of the month is it?

 

Rather than re-hash the usual: no - keep 'em.

 

(Latest updated figures: I currently have 53 Detonations, out of 5,029 Random battles; that's an incidence of 1.05%.)

 

 

Just because it's not widespread enough doesn't mean it's necessarily acceptable. Especially for something that is easily removed.

[Itwastuesday]

No, just need to remove the detonationflag.

[Uglesett]

Considering how much the game gives the finger to realism in pretty much all other respects, I don't really see the point of keeping detonations in the game. They're just a randomly occurring event that removes one ship from the game early, and/or a credit/coal drain.

 

I say ditch it, along with permanent module destruction.